Martin v. Clay

• Decision Date: 11 February 1899
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Parties: MARTIN, County Treasurer, et al. v. SAMUEL CLAY et al

1899 OK 30

56 P. 715

8 Okla. 46

MARTIN, County Treasurer, et al. v. SAMUEL CLAY et al

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 11, 1899

SYLLABUS

¶0 1. PLEADING--Misjoinder of Parties--Demurrer--Motion. Misjoinder of parties plaintiff is not a ground for demurrer, under our practice; nor can the fact that a plaintiff in a case where such proceeding is not authorized brings the action in his own name, in his own behalf, and in behalf of numerous others, whose names are inserted in the body of the petition, be taken advantage of by demurrer, but such defects must be brought to the attention of the trial court by an appropriate motion.

2. TAXATION--Excessive Assessment--Injunction. Where one seeks to enjoin the collection of a tax on the ground of excessive assessment, arising from the action of a board of equalization in increasing the valuation of the property over the returned valuation, plaintiff must allege that his property was returned for assessment at its true cash value; and a petition for injunction which simply states that the property was returned at a certain value, and that such valuation was reasonable and fair, does not state a cause of action, and will be held bad on demurrer.

3. SAME--Board of Equalization. The case of Wallace v. Bullen, 52 P. 954, 6 Okla. 17, and cases following the rule therein laid down, are decisive of the same proposition involved in this case.

Error from the District Court of Pottawatomie County; before J. R. Keaton, District Judge.

Injunction by Samuel Clay, for himself and fifty-five others, again the treasurer, sheriff, and board of county commissioners of Pottawatomie county, enjoining the collection of taxes. From a judgment for the plaintiffs, defendants bring error. Reversed.

W. J. Lockey, T. G. Cutlip and B. B. Blakeney, for plaintiffs in error.

W. S. Pendleton, for defendants in error.

TARSNEY, J.:

¶1 On June 13, 1896, the defendant in error Samuel Clay filed a petition in the district court of Pottawatomie county, for himself and fifty-five others named in said petition, praying an injunction against the plaintiffs in error, restraining them from collecting that portion of the taxes for the year 1895 assessed and levied against each of said parties upon the basis of the increase of assessments arising from the action of the board of territorial equalization in raising the returned values of property in Pottawatomie county 35 per cent. over the valuation thereof returned by the county clerk of said county to said board of equalization. The defendants filed a demurrer to the petition of the plaintiff on the ground that said "petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." The demurrer being by the court overruled, and the defendant declining to plead further, judgment was rendered as prayed for in the petition; and the case is brought here by petition in error.

¶2 The only question presented is that arising upon the action of the court in overruling the demurrer to the petition in the cause. The action was based upon the alleged illegality of the proceedings of the territorial board of equalization for the year 1895 in raising the aggregate of valuations of property returned from the several counties over the valuations as shown by the returns of the various county clerks. This court has repeatedly held, (and it is no longer an open question,) that the board of equalization had authority of law for the action complained of, and that the increase of valuations ordered by them in the various counties for the year 1895 was legal, and that the collection of taxes based thereon would not be enjoined on the ground that such increase of valuations was without authority of law. (Wallace v. Bullen, 6 Okla. 17, 52 P. 954; Gay v. Thomas, 5 Okla. 1, 46 P. 578; Id. [Okla.] 54 P. 444; Gray v. Stiles, 6 Okla. 455, 49 P. 1083; Id., 54 P. 485; Renfrew v. Webb, 7 Okla. 198, 54 P. 448; Wallace v. Bullen, 6 Okla. 757, 54 P. 974 (on rehearing); Weber v. Dillon, 7 Okla. 568 54 P. 894.

¶3 In Wallace v. Bullen, 6 Okla. 17, 52 P. 954, this court, speaking of the powers and functions of the several boards and officers charged with the assessment and equalization of assessments for the purposes of taxation, said: "These several officers and boards may be said to comprise the machinery of the law for exercising the taxing powers of government. Each must act within the special scope of his or its authority, and, when so acting, the only limitation that we can discover to the combined authority and jurisdiction of all is that their imposition of taxation must be equal and uniform. In assessing they must not fix values higher than the true cash value of the property assessed; and in levying they must not levy a higher rate than that limited by the law. In other words, the general scope of the jurisdiction and powers of the taxing authorities is to impose taxation upon property assessed at its true cash value, and at a rate not exceeding the maximum fixed by law; and when the authorities have proceeded and acted within the scope of their authority as thus defined, and property has not been valued for taxation beyond its true cash value, or a greater rate of...